Allowed

Hariharan, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nilakottai

Madras HC21 Nov 2025CRL OP(MD)/21008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by an accused in a shop-breaking and theft case; the court granted bail on conditions including a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, daily police reporting for one week, and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily police reporting for one week.

Hariharan, Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of… — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 21.11.2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

¶8

Hariharan ... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

¶10

The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Nilakkottai Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.293 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vishnuram, Advocate.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶14

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.293 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of BNS 2023, in Crime No.293 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had broken open the shop of the defacto complainant and stolen cash of Rs.10,000/-, 52 Android mobile phones and 10 keypads and other articles from the shop of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that co-accused had already been arrested and thereafter, they were released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

¶25

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is

¶26

no previous case pending against the petitioner and 28 cellphone were recovered. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and 28 cellphone were recovered and also considering the age of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶28

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which, the order copy was made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

¶32

Nilakkottai, Dindigul District, and on further conditions that:

¶33

(a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶34

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 06.00 p.m., for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required before the

¶35

trial Court.

¶36

¶37

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶38

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

¶42

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶43

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can

¶44

be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

(S S Y J)

21.11.2025

msrm

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.

¶50

2.The Inspector of Police, Nilakkottai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶51

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

5/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

CRL OP(MD). No.21008 of 2025

S,SRIMATHY,J

msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21008 of 2025

¶59

21.11.2025

¶60

6/6

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Hariharan, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nilakottai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariharan, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nilakottai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundaramoorthy Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thirumangalam Town

Banu Chandar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Chandra Mohan Vs The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

Poobalan Vs The State of Tamil nadu

Surya Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Peraiyur

K Rajkumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police